# Decision in Dover ID trial expected to come down tomorrow. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353 "2005-12-19T21:40:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/1 "2005-12-19T21:40:01Z")
[Link](http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3321149) > [@](#): > > Judge John E. Jones III’s response to six weeks of testimony, encompassing everything from the Big Bang theory and the bacterial flagellum to the Cambrian Explosion, is expected early this week. Plaintiffs’ lawyers and scientists say the ruling will likely be Tuesday. > > Depending on how he rules, Jones’ decision could have a lasting effect on the way biology is taught in schools across the country. On the positive side, the defense (the pro-ID side) was consistently demolished and embarrassed throughout this case. On the facts alone, this should be a slam dunk for the plaintiffs. On the other hand, Judge Jones is a Republican Bush apointee who hobnobs with the likes of Rick Santorum. I have to say that concerns me a little. My anxiety is tempered a little by this [NYT profile](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/national/18judge.html) on Jones which suggests that he is not a wild-eyed partisan and that he takes his responsibilities seriously. The NYT piece claims that > [@](#): > > One of his clerks hinted last week that the decision was long. Which to me would suggest a decision in favor of the plaintiffs with a careful explanation. Anyway, I just wanted to open up a thread for speculation, and eventual reaction to the decision. I’d be interested in hearing predictions as to the decision and any opinions from people who have followed the case. (I hope the mods do not object to my posting of this thread in GD. I’m doing so because of the inherently contentious nature of the subject as well as to anticipate the possibility of disagreements as to the decision. If the mods, in their wisdom, decide that another forum would be more suitabble, I will defer to their better judgement) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/2 "2005-12-19T21:44:44Z")
I couldn’t tell from the article: which side is the plaintiff in this case? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/3 "2005-12-19T21:52:31Z")
Intelligent Design is clearly creationism dressed up in the lanaguage of science. Of that I have no doubt. But as long as it doesn’t actually try to teach the creation myth of any religion in science classes, I don’t see how it violates the First Amendment. I don’t want the courts determining what is science and what is not science. Unfortunately, we have to let people make stupid decisions somtimes in order to live in a free society. And if some school board decides to teach junk science, they shouldn’t be stopped by the courts from doing so. If they try to teach the specific creation myth of any religion as fact, then the courts should step in and stop that practice. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/4 "2005-12-19T22:05:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I couldn’t tell from the article: which side is the plaintiff in this case? The plaintiff is the anti-ID side, represented by various parents from Dover who object to their children being taught it. The defendants are the school board, who wanted to teach it. And were _all_ removed from office in the recent elections. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/5 "2005-12-19T22:16:18Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I couldn’t tell from the article: which side is the plaintiff in this case? The plaintiffs are 11 parents who are suing on Establishment grounds. Basically, they’re claiming that teaching ID = teaching religion. In other words, the plaintiffs are “anti-ID”, the defense is pro. > [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t want the courts determining what is science and what is not science. That’s not what the court is being asked to decide. The decision before this judge is whether ID is _religion_, which it clearly is. It was specifically evidenced in this case by the fact the draft textbook proposed for the classroom had been altered to change the original term “creationism” to “intelligent design.” ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/6 "2005-12-19T22:16:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But as long as it doesn’t actually try to teach the creation myth of any religion in science classes, I don’t see how it violates the First Amendment… > If they try to teach the specific creation myth of any religion as fact, then the courts should step in and stop that practice. Well, this is the point - or, rather, one of them. It’s as certain as anything can be in law that Judge Jones is going to rule that the Dover school board, specifically, violated the First Amendment, as the records of the various meetings show that they intended to advance the cause of religion by doing so. It’s to be hoped that he also rules that teaching ID _generally_ is in violation of the First Amendment because it _does_ constitute “the specific creation myth of [a] religion”, rather than upholding the case on just the narrow fact that the school board, as individuals, had religious motives for introducing it. ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/7 "2005-12-19T22:25:44Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Intelligent Design is clearly creationism dressed up in the lanaguage of science. Of that I have no doubt. But as long as it doesn’t actually try to teach the creation myth of any religion in science classes, I don’t see how it violates the First Amendment. I don’t want the courts determining what is science and what is not science. Unfortunately, we have to let people make stupid decisions somtimes in order to live in a free society. And if some school board decides to teach junk science, they shouldn’t be stopped by the courts from doing so. If they try to teach the specific creation myth of any religion as fact, then the courts should step in and stop that practice. I’m mostly with you on this, but only if a university with a science class prerequisite gets to decide whether this class counts or not. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/8 "2005-12-19T22:38:21Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > It’s to be hoped that he also rules that teaching ID _generally_ is in violation of the First Amendment because it _does_ constitute “the specific creation myth of [a] religion”, rather than upholding the case on just the narrow fact that the school board, as individuals, had religious motives for introducing it. No, it doesn’t. “Irreducible complexity” isn’t part of a creation myth-- it’s junk science. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/9 "2005-12-19T22:41:38Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > No, it doesn’t. “Irreducible complexity” isn’t part of a creation myth-- it’s junk science. An “intelligent _designer_” is religion. Irreducible Complexity doesn’t even exist. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/10 "2005-12-19T22:46:04Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > An “intelligent _designer_” is religion. Even if the schools were teaching that an intelligent designer might have been involved, that wouldn’t be establishing a religion. One might make that argument if the schools taught ID **instead of** evolution. But that’s not what was being proposed. > [@](#): > > Irreducible Complexity doesn’t even exist. As an idea it does. Teaching it as an idea doesn’t amount to establishing a religion. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/11 "2005-12-19T22:54:25Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Even if the schools were teaching that an intelligent designer might have been involved, that wouldn’t be establishing a religion. Yes it would. As I once heard on the Daily Show- If an “Intelligent Designer” isn’t God, then it’s someone else who has the same _powers_ as God. Did you read what I pisted before about the textbook being specifically a _creationist_ book which merely altered the words? > [@](#): > > One might make that argument if the schools taught ID **instead of** evolution. But that’s not what was being proposed. The Establishment Clause does not say you are allowed to teach religion _along with_ science. You can’t teach religion, period. > [@](#): > > As an idea it does. Teaching it as an idea doesn’t amount to establishing a religion. As an idea, magic elves exist. That doesn’t mean you can teach it as fact in a science class. When a public school teaches that something can _only_ have come about by God, it is violating Establishment. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/12 "2005-12-19T22:57:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Even if the schools were teaching that an intelligent designer might have been involved, that wouldn’t be establishing a religion. One might make that argument if the schools taught ID **instead of** evolution. But that’s not what was being proposed. The two critical US cases are [Epperson v Arkansas](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html), which made it illegal to teach creationism _instead of_ evolution, and [Edwards v Augillard](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html), which ruled that your proposal - teaching creationism _alongside_ evolution - was also in violation of the First Amendment. Whether or not this is “just” or “right” is a matter for debate, but it’s what the US Supreme Court have decided. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/13 "2005-12-20T00:00:57Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Intelligent Design is clearly creationism dressed up in the lanaguage of science. Of that I have no doubt. But as long as it doesn’t actually try to teach the creation myth of any religion in science classes, I don’t see how it violates the First Amendment. I don’t want the courts determining what is science and what is not science. Unfortunately, we have to let people make stupid decisions somtimes in order to live in a free society. And if some school board decides to teach junk science, they shouldn’t be stopped by the courts from doing so. If they try to teach the specific creation myth of any religion as fact, then the courts should step in and stop that practice. From the coverage I read, the plaintiffs showed that there was significant religious motivation for the decision to teach ID. I think that might have an impact. All the coverage I read of the trial aligns with the NY Times piece. Judge Jones seems to be a fair person to hear this case. His comments, and his decision to allow scientific testimony, which is rare, makes me feel quite good about him. It is moot in a sense, since the new school board would certainly remove the teaching of ID in any case. I don’t know when they take office, but they can’t do it before the decision, or the case might become irrelevant, and it is useful to have this as precedent if it goes our way. Remember the Scopes trial got thrown out on a technicality, so his conviction could never get overruled on Constitutional grounds, which was the whole point. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/14 "2005-12-20T00:24:38Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Yes it would. As I once heard on the Daily Show- If an “Intelligent Designer” isn’t God, then it’s someone else who has the same _powers_ as God. > > Did you read what I pisted before about the textbook being specifically a _creationist_ book which merely altered the words? > > The Establishment Clause does not say you are allowed to teach religion _along with_ science. You can’t teach religion, period. > > As an idea, magic elves exist. That doesn’t mean you can teach it as fact in a science class. When a public school teaches that something can _only_ have come about by God, it is violating Establishment. You might be right in terms of how the court will rule, but I’m talking about how the court should rule. Besides, you seem to be making the case that the court can decide what constitutes science. I don’t know about elves, but what if the schools wanted to teach that space aliens built the pyramids? That’s terrible science, but it isn’t religion. I didn’t see the part of the text book. Was it in the first link in the OP? I missed it. Can you quote it? > [@Tevildo](#): > > The two critical US cases are Epperson v Arkansas, which made it illegal to teach creationism instead of evolution, and Edwards v Augillard, which ruled that your proposal - teaching creationism alongside evolution - was also in violation of the First Amendment. > > Whether or not this is “just” or “right” is a matter for debate, but it’s what the US Supreme Court have decided. The argument turns on whether or not ID is actually creationism or not. I think it would be possible to dress up ID so that it wasn’t teaching creationism. If, in this case ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/15 "2005-12-20T00:30:53Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > If, in this case they are actually using religious text books with just a few words changed, then I agree they are teaching religion. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/16 "2005-12-20T00:35:51Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > The plaintiff is the anti-ID side, represented by various parents from Dover who object to their children being taught it. The defendants are the school board, who wanted to teach it. And were _all_ removed from office in the recent elections. 🙂 Call me a political junkie but I thought this, more than the lawsuit, was the important judgement in the case. Put ID in your school curricula = (at least at first blush) the end of one’s political career. You want a ‘chilling effect’? That will do it. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/17 "2005-12-20T00:42:09Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The argument turns on whether or not ID is actually creationism or not. I think it would be possible to dress up ID so that it wasn’t teaching creationism. If, in this case Well, changing “God” to “The Creator” didn’t help in _McLean_ or _Edwards_, so I doubt if changing “The Creator” to “The Designer” is going to, either. But, yes, this will depend on a judicial ruling. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/18 "2005-12-20T01:05:14Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I didn’t see the part of the text book. Was it in the first link in the OP? I missed it. Can you quote it? It wasn’t linked in the OP. [Here](http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/of_pandas_and_p.html) is a link with a bit of relevant testimony. > [@](#): > > The argument turns on whether or not ID is actually creationism or not. I think it would be possible to dress up ID so that it wasn’t teaching creationism. Tell me how. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/19 "2005-12-20T01:22:24Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It wasn’t linked in the OP. [Here](http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/of_pandas_and_p.html) is a link with a bit of relevant testimony. Maybe I’m not following this, but how does this specifically relate to the Dover case? Were they using this sort of textbook? > [@](#): > > Tell me how. Just call the intelligent designer a space alien, or don’t even reference the designer-- just concentrate on irreducible complexity as a critique of Darwinian evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353/20 "2005-12-20T01:36:52Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Maybe I’m not following this, but how does this specifically relate to the Dover case? Were they using this sort of textbook? What I linked to was a piece of testimony FROM the Dover Case (Kitzmiller V. DASD. DASD stands for Dover Area School District). The textbook in question _was_ the proposed textbook to be taught in this class. > [@](#): > > Just call the intelligent designer a space alien, or don’t even reference the designer-- just concentrate on irreducible complexity as a critique of Darwinian evolution. Irreducible Complexity is not a critiique of Darwinian Evolution unless it can be proven to exist. You might as well say that the “Invisble magic magnet” theory is a critique of Newtonian physics. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/decision-in-dover-id-trial-expected-to-come-down-tomorrow/336353.md?page=2)